Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Why You Need Trusted News Sources

Recommended Posts

"I hope you realise that your post displays the 'privilege' that they are talking about and how it is affecting society at this point."

 

I'm offended by your inferences Deicer.

I'm proud to be white and would NEVER apologize to you, or any other Johnny-come'-lately to this once great Country.

From the result, it would appear it's newcomers that have and are enjoying all the privilege and opportunity.

 
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DEFCON said:

"I hope you realise that your post displays the 'privilege' that they are talking about and how it is affecting society at this point."

 

I'm offended by your inferences Deicer.

I'm proud to be white and would NEVER apologize to you, or any other Johnny-come'-lately to this once great Country.

From the result, it would appear it's newcomers that have and are enjoying all the privilege and opportunity.

 

Did you notice that he couldn't be bothered to reply to my post in response to his?

I called him out, and, nothing but crickets..........

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was nothing to respond to.  But if you want one, here goes.

The privilege is that that you feel that you need to strike back at a perceived threat.  You feel that at your station in life you shouldn't have to change your behaviours because of the threats you feel are coming from our changing society.

You feel scared for your son?  Why?  Aren't you raising him properly?  

If you look at the cases of where a man has been accused of improper behaviour, that is usually for a good reason for it.  How many men of power have been paying women to keep quiet about their 'indiscretions' over the years?  

Women have gotten the short end of the stick (no pun intended) and now that they decide to push back they are a threat?

I don't worry that my son will be a target.  I have raised him to be a decent human being that respects all those around him.  And if he doesn't understand an issue, he is open enough to talk to me about it.  

His world is different than mine.  He didn't have to adapt, I did.

I moved forward.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about your world, but in my experience I learned long ago that women have tremendous power and influence over men.

The men of the muslim culture and others recognized this fact and their male weaknesses long ago.

They responded by creating a set of rules that ensured their dominance over women.

Force, or the threat thereof is even employed to maintain this set of Rights and rules and preserve the lifestyle male practitioners of the faith believe they're entitled to.

I'll bet they have one hell of a time trying to gain an appreciation for Western men's rejection of their principles?

And to think that you and the Madonna's of the world would have us believe that western men are somehow treating women in misogynistic ways???

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

 

The privilege is that that you feel that you need to strike back at a perceived threat.  You feel that at your station in life you shouldn't have to change your behaviours because of the threats you feel are coming from our changing society.

You feel scared for your son?  Why?  Aren't you raising him properly?  

If you look at the cases of where a man has been accused of improper behaviour, that is usually for a good reason for it.  How many men of power have been paying women to keep quiet about their 'indiscretions' over the years?  

Women have gotten the short end of the stick (no pun intended) and now that they decide to push back they are a threat?

I don't worry that my son will be a target.  I have raised him to be a decent human being that respects all those around him.  And if he doesn't understand an issue, he is open enough to talk to me about it.  

His world is different than mine.  He didn't have to adapt, I did.

I moved forward.

I was not striking back at any perceived threat - this isn't about me.  I was commenting on some delusional woman who's teaching her daughter that she's disadvantaged, when she isn't, and teaching her son that he's privileged when he isn't.

I raised me son just fine, thanks for asking.  The threats he will, or may, face have nothing to do with his upbringing.

Here's a story about a young man who's been falsely accused: https://www.foxnews.com/us/five-high-school-mean-girls-targeted-boy-with-false-accusations-of-sexual-assault-lawsuit-claims

Do you think he did something to deserve this?  You'll note, if you care to read the story, that the 5 young women who falsified the accusation against him faced no repercussions. None.  No legal charges, no suspensions.  The young man lost his job, faced multiple count appearances, was detained in a facility , detained at home, could not attend school and now has mental health problems.  Where does the privilege lie?

I hope your son isn't a target but if some young woman was to decide that she's been scorned or rejected (even if she wasn't) his upbringing or respect for those around him will be irrelevant.  This is the rude awakening that many good parents of good sons have had to endure.

You chose to respond to one of the points I raised.  Now, what do you have to say about women's advantages in University enrolment and scholarships, reduced sentencing in criminal proceedings, higher spending in women's health care, greater access to community services, preferential hiring and the abysmal treatment of men and fathers in the family court system?  And your telling me that women get the short end of the stick?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned before, the pendulum is now swinging the other way.  So if you perceive that women are getting an unfair advantage, balance will eventually come.

Until then, maybe you should discuss it with women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

As I mentioned before, the pendulum is now swinging the other way.  So if you perceive that women are getting an unfair advantage, balance will eventually come.

Until then, maybe you should discuss it with women?

So you agree then that the woman is delusional and that women are not disadvantaged and that her son does not enjoy any privilege by virtue of simply being male.  Thank you.

Now, would you care to discus how her children's "non-white" friends are also not disadvantaged?

As for discussing it with women, how do you know I don't?  Anyway, not many women here on the forum but I'm doing the next best thing - discussing it with a leftist, feminist man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't agreed to anything, that is just your projection.

Thank you for once again confirming that when out of rational argument, name call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that name calling Deicer?

You are an obvious leftist; your posts make that clear.

And although you haven't declared like trudeau, your support for today's really messed up form of feminism says you must be one too?.

You demonstrate another personal bent fairly frequently as well; that is, your disdain for white males.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 12:13 PM, deicer said:

Haven't agreed to anything, that is just your projection.

Thank you for once again confirming that when out of rational argument, name call.

Name calling?  Oh, you mean referring to you as "leftist" and "feminist."  Do you not self-identify as leftist and feminist?  You've certainly posted enough for others to think of you as being on the left - leftist.  Same goes for seeming to be a feminist or do you wish to disavow those beliefs?  I'm guessing you won't.  So, you want to espouse leftist and feminist thoughts and attitudes but don't like it when you are referred to in those terms.  

Obviously I being a little pedantic, I know what you mean when you take offence - what you're saying is that when I use those terms; leftist and feminist that it's meant to be taken as a derogatory slur and that it doesn't truly represent the depth and nuance of your attitudes and beliefs but rather attempts to put you in a neatly labeled box. OK, fair enough, but of course the same goes for those who get labeled as right-wing or conservative.

For almost all my life I considered myself to be liberal.  You might be surprised to hear that but, as Wolfhunter has pointed out in another thread, liberals have been sliding rapidly to the left and I find myself without a philosophical home.  If I can't find myself in the liberal belief system I guess I'm a conservative.  I'm the same guy with the same beliefs I always had but now I'm conservative?  Confusing.

 

One more thing - "out of rational argument?"  Hardly.  Just out of time to post them.

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning Seeker

Yes, the second paragraph sums it up pretty well.

Having said that, to touch upon your third paragraph, I agree with it's sentiment.  What I am seeing though, is instead of the population who feels like you do, and pretty much myself as well, there is no effort being put into 'making it better'.  What I see happening is a sliding of our society into the easy out of 'making it better for me'.  

The internet has made it too easy not to think.  It is too easy to fall into the trap of letting simple memes vocalise what you feel at the moment.  As it has been said before, people are now voting 'against' and not 'for'.  I think it's because it's easier.

What my pushback is against is the belief that one side is better than the other and therefore they are willing to cause damage to achieve damage against what they are against.  Sort of a new version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Living in the GTA, we are still dealing with what the Harris government had foisted upon the province.  Things that should have benefitted the people of Ontario instead were sold off to the benefit of corporations.  We are also seeing it happening again.  Was the previous government any better? Maybe not, but it was a reaction to the policies that came before.  I guess the point we are at is a PIO of politics that is just accelerating.  Measures need to be taken to calm the situation, instead the internet has given voice to those who wish to accelerate the process.  Like the anarchists are taking over.   The unfortunate thing is that it is playing to the profits of the corporatocracy.  There is no ROI in peace, is there?

Having said all that, I submit to you this opinion piece that kind of sums up how people are relating to each other currently...

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/opinion/2018/10/13/im-a-woman-who-imitated-the-swagger-of-an-entitled-white-male-and-it-got-results.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to the link:

Other than the deliberate overtone of rudeness on her part, which never works and isn’t recommended, it sounds like she has finally infused her life with assertiveness, common sense and is getting on with the grunt. Being late and leaving early is simply rude and has nothing to do with the premise she purports to be examining. Over the years, I have debriefed a number of folks to that effect, not all of them were white... they were just slack and lazy. Socializing with coworkers and subordinates (again reasonableness please) is what good leaders do.

If more people were objective oriented, called it as they saw it and simply got on with the job at hand, we would be better off. Ascribing these attributes to white privilege and swagger strikes me as foolish, I hope to find these qualities in all people. Toronto City Council are in dire need of these very attributes. Again, the caveat being reasonableness in the application and consideration in the tone, if she thinks simple rudeness rules the day she wouldn’t last long with reasonable people. Rude fakers have an odour that’s discernible at a distance. She only needs to drop the attitude, we can work with most of what's left. In fact, when you dump the attitude, her new persona sounds a bit like my mother... and she always voted liberal.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

Where was that copy and pasted from?

Are you talking about my response? If so, I just wrote it... if not, please disregard.

That said, If time permits, I usually cut and paste from pages (mac's version of word) and It sometimes alters the font. I'm just not smart enough to fix it or conscientious enough to care. That was the case here, the reference to the link was added as an after thought to avoid confusion.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, deicer said:

Interesting article, thank for posting it.

I generally love reading these sort of accounts of someone adopting the mantle of their enemy and attempting to discover some deep hidden truth.  My favourite was a woman who cut her hair short, put on men's clothes, presented herself as a man and joined a men's bowling league expecting to find a bunch of mouth-breathing misogynistic neanderthals who would exclude her and display their stereotypical attitudes.  Instead she found acceptance and, after they got to know her, found surprisingly sympathetic and compassionate friendships (surprising to her).  Unfortunately the opposite sometimes happens in that the end result exposes the biases and misapprehensions present in the person running the experiment.

The author of the article starts with two premises; that "white male power" exists and that it's a bad thing.  I'll separate these and talk about them individually.  She bases her experiment on the movie Friday Night Lights with a white, male coach and says that his demeanour is indicative of white, male power.  I recall another movie called Coach Carter.  Slightly different plot but still has a coach that is unweilding and resolute in his style.  The main difference is that the coach is black.  When we watch this movie are we seeing "black male power" or are we to assume that he's imitating a white male?  We could look to real life in the example of Margaret Thatcher - similarly assertive and controlling.  Is this "white female power" or was she also simply imitating a white male?  Maybe we could look at Indira Ghandi?  Here was a person-of-colour (to use today's PC terms) who was also a woman.  Well, you get the idea.  The author is confusing confidence and competence with power.

I know many white males who occupy position of authority and power.  I also know many non-white men and many women who occupy these positions.  Being white and male has nothing to do with it.  It all comes down to competence.  White or nonwhite, man or woman doesn't matter - competence rises to the top.

Her second point is that "white male power" is bad.  By her own admission she would have achieved the same result, of getting her way, by different means.  She would have talked, debated, made detailed arguments, etc but she still wants to have things done her way.  The end result is the same but it would take longer and be more exhausting so is the assertive way worse.  I think not.  The caveat is that being assertive and resolute in your management style only works if you are actually right.  A manager, boss, coach only gets respect is they are correct.  If they are not getting results or are making bad calls the whole thing collapses. Nobody respects incompetence. 

This is the problem with out society, we are told that a white male in a position of authority represents privilege all the while ignoring the skills and hard work that got that person into that position.  I'm a white male in a position of authority.  I came from a very blue collar background.  My parents were good people but both worked in blue collar jobs and I got no hand up or assistance (other than the instillation of good values) from them in establishing my career choices.  I benefited from no privilege. I got to where I am through 30 years of hard work.  Privilege didn't get me here it was being willing to work an open ramp in Yellowknife in January that got me here.  

This is the thing that really rankles me; everyone's a victim.  A woman who can't find a job? Well, obviously that's because of her gender.  A non-white man who can't get ahead, obviously because of racism.  A blue-haired, transgender person who refuses to leave downtown Vancouver can't make way in their career - they're being discriminated against.  I started in Saskatchewan, moved to BC, then the Territories, then Ontario, then Atlantic Canada, then back to Ontario and now I'm successful.  Don't talk to me about how you're being disadvantaged until you leave your friends and family and comfortable life to follow jobs back and forth across the country for 30 years.

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An article from the Toronto Star and written by an author recently appointed to the Women and Gender Studies Institute.....nuff  said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another attempted hit job by the MSM, this time NBC & of course CNN blew up on their faces 

 

“ After Trump called out NBC News, the network posted a correction.

"CORRECTION: An earlier tweet misidentified the general President Trump described as "incredible" at a rally in Ohio. It was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, not Gen. Robert E. Lee. An attached video clip lacked the full context for Trump's remark.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37110/fake-news-nbc-news-says-trump-praised-robert-e-lee-joseph-curl

 

****************************************

 

“ The provable lies and disgraceful race-baiting espoused by CNN anchor Ana Cabrera are especially shameful coming from a network that unironically brands itself as the 'realest name in news,'" Surabian said. "If CNN has even a sliver of journalistic credibility left, they will issue an immediate on air apology to both President Trump and Don Jr." 

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37112/watch-cnn-anchor-lies-about-remarks-made-trump-ryan-saavedra

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 8:20 PM, seeker said:

Interesting article, thank for posting it.

I generally love reading these sort of accounts of someone adopting the mantle of their enemy and attempting to discover some deep hidden truth.  My favourite was a woman who cut her hair short, put on men's clothes, presented herself as a man and joined a men's bowling league expecting to find a bunch of mouth-breathing misogynistic neanderthals who would exclude her and display their stereotypical attitudes.  Instead she found acceptance and, after they got to know her, found surprisingly sympathetic and compassionate friendships (surprising to her).  Unfortunately the opposite sometimes happens in that the end result exposes the biases and misapprehensions present in the person running the experiment.

The author of the article starts with two premises; that "white male power" exists and that it's a bad thing.  I'll separate these and talk about them individually.  She bases her experiment on the movie Friday Night Lights with a white, male coach and says that his demeanour is indicative of white, male power.  I recall another movie called Coach Carter.  Slightly different plot but still has a coach that is unweilding and resolute in his style.  The main difference is that the coach is black.  When we watch this movie are we seeing "black male power" or are we to assume that he's imitating a white male?  We could look to real life in the example of Margaret Thatcher - similarly assertive and controlling.  Is this "white female power" or was she also simply imitating a white male?  Maybe we could look at Indira Ghandi?  Here was a person-of-colour (to use today's PC terms) who was also a woman.  Well, you get the idea.  The author is confusing confidence and competence with power.

I know many white males who occupy position of authority and power.  I also know many non-white men and many women who occupy these positions.  Being white and male has nothing to do with it.  It all comes down to competence.  White or nonwhite, man or woman doesn't matter - competence rises to the top.

Her second point is that "white male power" is bad.  By her own admission she would have achieved the same result, of getting her way, by different means.  She would have talked, debated, made detailed arguments, etc but she still wants to have things done her way.  The end result is the same but it would take longer and be more exhausting so is the assertive way worse.  I think not.  The caveat is that being assertive and resolute in your management style only works if you are actually right.  A manager, boss, coach only gets respect is they are correct.  If they are not getting results or are making bad calls the whole thing collapses. Nobody respects incompetence. 

This is the problem with out society, we are told that a white male in a position of authority represents privilege all the while ignoring the skills and hard work that got that person into that position.  I'm a white male in a position of authority.  I came from a very blue collar background.  My parents were good people but both worked in blue collar jobs and I got no hand up or assistance (other than the instillation of good values) from them in establishing my career choices.  I benefited from no privilege. I got to where I am through 30 years of hard work.  Privilege didn't get me here it was being willing to work an open ramp in Yellowknife in January that got me here.  

This is the thing that really rankles me; everyone's a victim.  A woman who can't find a job? Well, obviously that's because of her gender.  A non-white man who can't get ahead, obviously because of racism.  A blue-haired, transgender person who refuses to leave downtown Vancouver can't make way in their career - they're being discriminated against.  I started in Saskatchewan, moved to BC, then the Territories, then Ontario, then Atlantic Canada, then back to Ontario and now I'm successful.  Don't talk to me about how you're being disadvantaged until you leave your friends and family and comfortable life to follow jobs back and forth across the country for 30 years.

This seems off.

I have seen, is several instances, where incompetence rises to the top and as a result destroys productivity.  When the incompetence does make it to the top the competent people below either leave the company or change positions to escape.  The other scenario is that the incompetent leader promotes incompetence in order to make him / her seem more competent.  This process erodes a company from the inside.

I can cite many examples of this both past and current.

The process does not recognize colour, race, sex or any other physical trait.  incompetence comes in all forms as does power and competence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, boestar said:

The process does not recognize colour, race, sex or any other physical trait.  incompetence comes in all forms as does power and competence.

Agreed, Prices Law is governing here and isn’t affected by the race, education or gender of the people.

Many (I say most) supervisors don’t even know who their top performers are. When times get tough (for companies), it is often incompetence that is retained, the top performers know who they are, have options and leave; the void becomes unmanageable in the short term… which is the real danger of ignoring, or not being aware of Prices Law. Perversely, the larger the organization the more susceptible it is, the downward spiral can be fairly dramatic.

IMO, the military has replaced leadership with management to its own detriment. Pilot retention, experience levels and the ability (opportunity) to train themselves out of the shortage without sacrificing operational tempo has now come and gone. The pilot shortage in the RCAF is now a problem and it was largely self inflicted. Pilots are retained one at a time but are lost in twos and threes... it takes leadership to manage people not management to lead them. Like the effects of liberal policies (I offer Toronto as an example) by the time it becomes clear to those in charge that the wrong path has been taken, the lions are already behind you and it's getting dark. Strength of an idea is a dangerous beast... I prefer lions. If you don't do an ammo count until after the first growl, it's too late.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TRUDEAU APPROVAL RATING: Donald Trump Is More Popular In The U.S. Than Justin Trudeau Is In Canada

 

If you watch Canadian news, you’ll often see far more coverage of Donald Trump than you will of Justin Trudeau or Canadian politics.

Most of the coverage of Trump is uniformly negative, and watching it could give you the impression that Trump is massively unpopular in the U.S.

By contrast, the coverage that Trudeau gets (even in the U.S. media) usually presents him as a popular figure, with widespread support among Canadians.

Yet, both of those perceptions are wrong.

According to the Real Clear Politics aggregation of Trump approval polls, 44.1% of Americans approve of him, while 51.7% disapprove.

Well, according to the CBC Leader Meter, which aggregates Trudeau approval polls, 40.6% of Canadians approve of Trudeau, while 49.1% disapprove.

So, Trump’s net approval rating is -7.6, while Trudeau’s net approval rating is -8.5.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/10/18/trudeau-approval-rating-donald-trump-is-more-popular-in-the-u-s-than-justin-trudeau-is-in-canada/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media CEO Urges Drastic Steps From News Orgs To Hide Left-Wing Bias

Axios CEO Jim VandeHei encouraged news organizations to "ban their reporters from doing anything on social media" in order to conceal their left-wing biases which he says is hurting the media's credibility.

VandeHei said in an article on Sunday that he was asked by students at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh what needs to happen to "restore faith and trust in media."

Writing about what he thinks the media should do to regain trust from the public, VandeHei wrote:

News organizations should ban their reporters from doing anything on social media — especially Twitter — beyond sharing stories. Snark, jokes and blatant opinion are showing your hand, and it always seems to be the left one. This makes it impossible to win back the skeptics.

 

VandeHei does not call on news organizations to eliminate their left-wing biases in reporting, he simply wants it not to be as obvious so "the skeptics" can be won back.

Blatant left-leaning media bias extends far beyond the echo chambers on Twitter as studies have found that the media's coverage of President Donald Trump has been overwhelmingly negative, with ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News giving the president 92% negative coverage.

A Harvard study from last year found that networks like CNN have given the president 97% negative coverage.

VandeHei added that politicians should stop using the term "fake news," social media companies need to "radically self-regulate" or allow government oversight, and that people need to do a better job of verifying the trustworthiness of the content they read.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37408/media-ceo-urges-news-orgs-conceal-reporters-left-ryan-saavedra

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

VandeHei added that politicians should stop using the term "fake news,"

Take any subject that you have in-depth (boots on the ground) experience in, be it aviation, the geopolitical situation in a country you've spent a lot of time in, or what ever else you choose to name. Then compare what is being reported and what the government is saying about it with what you know (from experience) to be true. And then, as if that isn't bad enough, listen to people with zero knowledge or experience about the issue voice strong opinions on the subject. I stand in complete awe of it all. There is no search for truth, no discussion of the real issues and no agreement on reasonable solutions... not even a plan to develop them. Only polarized narratives to support an agenda. I fear for the future...

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada as a society buys into what is portrayed by the Liberal dominated media because they are too scared of the alternatives. To acknowledge anything else would allow for a sense of vulnerability to seep in and that is far too risky for the average Joe Blow Canadian. 

Sadly the easy “solution” is to turn a blind eye and deaf ear and buy into what we need to hear, rather than the truth. It’s tough to convince others of what they are not willing to acknowledge. ....and this is why Trudeau still leads in the polls...a easily pliable weak nimby electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this